Partly allowed

Smt.B.Geetha W/O. B Gopala Choudary v. B.Gopala Choudhary @ B Rajagopal

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2024RPFC/100009/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife and daughter sought enhancement of maintenance awarded by Family Court. Court noted respondent admitted owning land and earning income. Court enhanced wife's maintenance to Rs. 5,000/month while maintaining daughter's maintenance at Rs. 4,000/month, partly allowing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced monthly maintenance for wife to Rs. 5,000; daughter's maintenance continued at Rs. 4,000.

Smt.B.Geetha W/O. B Gopala Choudary Vs B.Gopala… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9274 RPFC No. 100009 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶6

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100009 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. B.GEETHA W/O. B GOPALA CHOUDARY, @ B RAJGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YRS., OCC : SINECURE, NOW R/AT: SHANKAR SIGH CAMP, BALLARI TQ AND DIST – 583 113.

¶9

KUMARI B. KAVYA D/O. B. B. GOPALA CHOUDHARY, @ B. RAJAGOPAL & SMT. B. GEETHA, AGED ABOUT 15 YRS, OCC: STUDENT, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SMT. B. GEETHA W/O. B. GOPALA CHOUDARY @ B RAJAGOPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YRS, OCC:SINECURE, NOW R/AT SHANKAR SINGH CAMP, BALLARI TQ AND DIST – 583 113.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI B. CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

B.GOPALA CHOUDHARY @ B RAJAGOPAL, S/O. BODAPATI JANGAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND WORKING IN DEVI FILM DISTRICUTOR, NOW RESIDING AT NEAR ANJINEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, LATHAVARAM, URAVAKONDA TALUK, URAVAKONDA, MANDALAM, ANANTHAPUR DIST, A.P STATE – 515 812.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI S.N.BANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT’S ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO ORDER DATED 06.10.2017, MADE IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO.162/2016, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI, MAY KINDLY BE

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9274 RPFC No. 100009 of 2019

¶19

MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT ON THE HIGHER SIDE, TO THE PETITIONERS HERE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is by the wife and daughter of the respondent seeking enhancement of the maintenance awarded by the Principal Judge Family Court, Ballari by order dated 06.10.2017 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.162/2016.

¶23

The marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent is stated to have been solemnized on 14.02.2001 at Shankar Singh Camp, Ballari Taluk and District. That within short span of married life respondent and his parents ill-treated the petitioner No.1 and ultimately driven her out of the family, constraining her to take shelter with her parents for about two years. Thereafter, respondent had agreed to take her back by which time he had given birth to the petitioner No.2. However, respondent relentlessly continued to harass the

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9274 RPFC No. 100009 of 2019

¶25

petitioner No.1 and demanded dowry from her parents. Besides, being addicted to bad habits. That he had completely neglected to maintain the petitioners despite having sufficient means of income. It is contended that he was working in VMC Film Distributor and also owned agricultural lands having income of Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. A notice was sent by the petitioners demanding for maintenance which was not exceeded by the respondent-husband. Hence, the petition.

¶26

Statement of objections were filed by the respondent-husband denying the petition averments except admitting the marriage and the birth of the child. It is contended that the petitioner No.1 within three months of their marriage demanded for a separate residence. However, the respondent-husband being the eldest son of the family and not being financial able could not make a separate house which led to she abusing and insulting the respondent. The hostility between the parties grew because of the attitude of the petitioner No.1. Though, he

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9274 RPFC No. 100009 of 2019

¶28

set up a separate house with an intention of leading a happily married life, the petitioner No.1 has not co-operate and insulted the respondent and his family members. That he had filed Original Petition No.139/2016 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthpur against the petitioner seeking restitution of conjugal rights as he is ready and willing to take her back. That he has not financial capacity to meet the unreasonable demand of the petitioner, hence sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

Parties examined themselves and also

¶30

examined additional two witnesses on each of their side. Produced the documents. The Family Court considering the pleadings framed points for its consideration and on appreciation answered the points in favour of the petitioners and awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.4,000/- to the petitioner No.2 till her marriage.

¶31

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are

¶32

before this Court.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9274 RPFC No. 100009 of 2019

¶34

Necessary also to note that the respondent-

¶35

husband had also filed revision petition before the Family

¶36

Court in RPFC No.100150/2017. This Court had directed the respondent to deposit the maintenance and arrears of maintenance. However the respondent-husband except depositing Rs.63,000/-, has not make any payment. By order dated 07.02.2024 upon the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent-husband of he not having instruction to proceed the case, this Court dismissed the said petition for non prosecution. Thus, as on this day there is no challenge to the said order, which is passed by the Family Court awarding the maintenance to the petitioners as noted above.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners retreating

¶38

the ground urged in the memorandum of petition submits

¶39

that the Family Court though had taken note of the financial capacity, means and ability of the respondenthusband to earn and pay the maintenance, has awarded meager amount of money without appreciating the present

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9274 RPFC No. 100009 of 2019

¶41

cost of living of the parties. Subsequently, the amount of maintenance to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 of Rs.3,000/and Rs.4,000/- respectively awarded by the Family Court is not sufficient for them to lead their lives. He submits that the respondent during the cross examination has

¶42

admitted to having 10 acres of agricultural land. Therefore, the presumption has to be drawn that he is having resources to generate income and to pay dues of the petitioners. He further submits that as on this date the respondent-husband due and liable to pay in excess of Rs.5,00,000/- and he has filed memo of calculation to that effect. Hence, seeks for enhancement of the maintenance

¶43

amount.

¶44

Heard. Perused the record.

¶45

9. None appears for the respondent-husband.

¶46

The respondent-husband in his deposition at

¶47

page No.10 paragraph No.27 has categorically admitted that he has 10 acres of land belonging to his elders. He has deposed that he is deriving about Rs.30,000/- income

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9274 RPFC No. 100009 of 2019

¶49

per annum. He also admitted that he and his mother owned a form land. The Family Court on appreciation of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the respondent-husband had willfully neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners and while answering point Nos.3 and 4 has come to the conclusion that the respondenthusband is able bodied healthy person possessing sufficient means to generate the income and pay the maintenance amount to the wife and daughter. The Family Court has assessed the income of the respondent-husband

¶50

and directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000 and Rs.4,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 respectively.

¶51

In the over all appreciation of the factual aspects, evidence made available on record and the reasoning assigned by the Family Court, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent-husband be directed to pay enhanced monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.3,000/- per month to the

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9274 RPFC No. 100009 of 2019

¶53

petitioner No.1-wife and as regards payment to the daughter-petitioner No.2 the same is continued at Rs.4,000/- as awarded by the Family Court till her marriage.

¶54

With the above observations, petition is partly allowed.

¶55

SD/JUDGE

¶56

SMM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Smt.B.Geetha W/O. B Gopala Choudary v. B.Gopala Choudhary @ B Rajagopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.B.Geetha W/O. B Gopala Choudary v. B.Gopala Choudhary @ B Rajagopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chougale Education Society Vs Government of Karnataka

Smt. Susilabi W/O. Veerabadrayya Bannimath Deceased Lrs as Below Vs Nagabhushan S/O. Shekharappa Meti

Srikanth S/O. Parameshwarappa Honnali Vs the State of Karnataka

Babu Nagappa Sulebhavi Vs the Commissioner

Fakrusab S/O Chandasab Tahashildar, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kavya W/O B Gopinaik Vs Shri. B Gopinaik S/O Late Beemanaik